Gas Bandit's Political Thread III

[Mr_Chaz]

I'm not terribly bright. :aaahhh:

And you never will be if you keep smoking like that!

 

[Espy]

I'm not terribly bright. :aaahhh:

And you never will be if you keep smoking like that!

*puff puff*

 

[Dieb]

Chances are if you were in that 38% making too little to pay income taxes, you also weren't spending a whole * of a lot on property and sales taxes, however. You might have a point about payroll taxes, but I have no doubt that if the payroll tax was eliminated entirely, the savings would not exactly get passed on to the employee, now would they?

First of all, sure poor people aren't spending a lot in sales taxes in absolute dollars, but they actually pay more in sales taxes as a percentage of their total income than do rich people. This is because poor people spend nearly all of their income - when you save money you obviously aren't paying a sales tax on it.

Now, payroll taxes - employers only pay half of payroll taxes. Employees pay the other half. Surely you've noticed this on your paychecks? And you're ignoring the self-employed, who have to pay all of it directly. Now sure, if the payroll tax were entirely eliminated, employers wouldn't raise wages by exactly the amount they currently pay in payroll taxes (although employees would presumably recieve all that they pay directly). But they would raise wages by quite a bit. Simple supply and demand. Oh, and because there is a cap on payroll taxes (you don't have to pay any on income of over $106,800 this year) they are yet another example of regressive taxes (poor people pay more as a percentage of their income than rich people).

I don't think I agree with your assertion that the security of our country depends on whether or not Joe the Crackhead and Mary the Housewife know the difference between the two. With a growing muslim presence it would be wise for them to learn the difference for personal reasons but overall for the majority of Americans it's as unimportant as whether or not they understand the difference between Baptist and Methodist.
Obviously there are those who need to know these things since they deal with them on a regular basis, particularly military and policy makers. Their knowledge could make a difference national security wise, but for the average american? Maybe you could explain what you mean since I'm not really getting it. If we are just talking about "understanding the strife in the Middle East" then sure, it's an important part of it, but I don't see how every American needs to understand it. Their understanding of it won't affect anything. Should they? Probably. Will it make a difference in the Middle East Strife? Probably not unless you know something I don't. Which is entirely possible. I'm not terribly bright. :aaahhh:

Well, maybe I'm naive, but I still subscribe to the idea that the people that deal with foreign affairs on a regular basis, the policy makers and the miltary and the like, are still accountable to average Americans. And it's not just voting - although you couldn't really understand the strengths and weaknesses of McCain's and Obama's foreign policy ideas during the campaign without knowledge of Sunnis and Shiites. It's simple things like calling your Congressman or woman before a big vote. Or demonstrating for or against the Iraq war. These things still do matter.

Sure, ok, one person isn't going to make a difference (no matter what they tell you). But the masses DO make a difference. No, more than that - the masses still shape our foreign policy. It's at a remove, sure - or we would have exited Iraq years ago. But eventually, the masses get their way - Obama never would have been elected President if the majority of the American people hadn't decided that the Iraq war was a mistake. Surely you would agree that the security of our nation depends on decisions like that?

 

[Espy]

I don't think I agree with your assertion that the security of our country depends on whether or not Joe the Crackhead and Mary the Housewife know the difference between the two. With a growing muslim presence it would be wise for them to learn the difference for personal reasons but overall for the majority of Americans it's as unimportant as whether or not they understand the difference between Baptist and Methodist.
Obviously there are those who need to know these things since they deal with them on a regular basis, particularly military and policy makers. Their knowledge could make a difference national security wise, but for the average american? Maybe you could explain what you mean since I'm not really getting it. If we are just talking about "understanding the strife in the Middle East" then sure, it's an important part of it, but I don't see how every American needs to understand it. Their understanding of it won't affect anything. Should they? Probably. Will it make a difference in the Middle East Strife? Probably not unless you know something I don't. Which is entirely possible. I'm not terribly bright. :aaahhh:

Well, maybe I'm naive, but I still subscribe to the idea that the people that deal with foreign affairs on a regular basis, the policy makers and the miltary and the like, are still accountable to average Americans. And it's not just voting - although you couldn't really understand the strengths and weaknesses of McCain's and Obama's foreign policy ideas during the campaign without knowledge of Sunnis and Shiites. It's simple things like calling your Congressman or woman before a big vote. Or demonstrating for or against the Iraq war. These things still do matter.

Sure, ok, one person isn't going to make a difference (no matter what they tell you). But the masses DO make a difference. No, more than that - the masses still shape our foreign policy. It's at a remove, sure - or we would have exited Iraq years ago. But eventually, the masses get their way - Obama never would have been elected President if the majority of the American people hadn't decided that the Iraq war was a mistake. Surely you would agree that the security of our nation depends on decisions like that?

Sure, like I said, it's wiser for the masses to know as much as possible in order to be able to make good decisions on policy makers, but it's the policy makers who need to know the nitty gritty of the thing. Considering the whole muslim religion is still a new-ish thing to many westerners in general I think we can the average joe some slack on his not finding time to study a religion he isn't part of in between his 60 hours a week of work, taking care of his family, etc. It hardly makes him a "retard".

My point was just that it's a silly argument to use if one wants to show the stupidity of the American people. There are much better. :heythere:

 

[Covar]

Once could have been a mistake, but a second time is deliberatly obscuring the truth.

Thats exactly what I said about taxes, but people here just told me to STFU about Geithner.

 

[Krisken]

Once could have been a mistake, but a second time is deliberatly obscuring the truth.

Thats exactly what I said about taxes, but people here just told me to STFU about Geithner.

:aaahhh: :aaahhh:

 

[Espy]

This just in: Double standards are real. Story at 11. Stay tuned for "Blogs: The new news or just a convenient place to spew crap?"

 

[Krisken]

This just in: Double standards are real. Story at 11. Stay tuned for "Blogs: The new news or just a convenient place to spew crap?"

Yup. Shit stinks no matter where you put it.

 

[Dieb]

Sure, like I said, it's wiser for the masses to know as much as possible in order to be able to make good decisions on policy makers, but it's the policy makers who need to know the nitty gritty of the thing. Considering the whole muslim religion is still a new-ish thing to many westerners in general I think we can the average joe some slack on his not finding time to study a religion he isn't part of in between his 60 hours a week of work, taking care of his family, etc. It hardly makes him a "retard".

My point was just that it's a silly argument to use if one wants to show the stupidity of the American people. There are much better. :heythere:

My point is that Sunni vs Shiite is MORE than the nitty gritty details. You simply cannot understand what's happening in Iraq unless you understand that divide. Now, I'm not saying the average American has to understand everything about the differences - but the basic facts are nevertheless key to the entire conflict in Iraq, and it plays an incredibly important role in the Isreal/Palestien question, relations with Iran, regional alliances, etc etc.

Anyway, you're certainly right that there are much better examples of the stupidity of the American people. If that's how the argument got started (I honestly can't remember) you're right. I just want to emphasize the importance of Sunni vs Shiite, if just to add an inducement to everyone to read up on it.

 

[JCM]

Sure, like I said, it's wiser for the masses to know as much as possible in order to be able to make good decisions on policy makers, but it's the policy makers who need to know the nitty gritty of the thing. Considering the whole muslim religion is still a new-ish thing to many westerners in general I think we can the average joe some slack on his not finding time to study a religion he isn't part of in between his 60 hours a week of work, taking care of his family, etc. It hardly makes him a "retard".

My point was just that it's a silly argument to use if one wants to show the stupidity of the American people. There are much better. :heythere:

My point is that Sunni vs Shiite is MORE than the nitty gritty details. You simply cannot understand what's happening in Iraq unless you understand that divide. Now, I'm not saying the average American has to understand everything about the differences - but the basic facts are nevertheless key to the entire conflict in Iraq, and it plays an incredibly important role in the Isreal/Palestien question, relations with Iran, regional alliances, etc etc..

Bingo.

And it saddens me that something most of me and my Muslim mates foresaw, Afghanistan returning to its Talibanese ways, Taliban slowly getting back in power, Iraq becoming an Iran proxy, terrorists getting a foothold in Iraq, etc, couldnt be foreseen by the best specialists working for the government.

But then you guys did train Osama, invite the Taliban for tea with the president, arm Saddam and the like, so maybe the stupid gene mostly appears satirically within the government "intelligence".

 

[GasBandit]

Chances are if you were in that 38% making too little to pay income taxes, you also weren't spending a whole * of a lot on property and sales taxes, however. You might have a point about payroll taxes, but I have no doubt that if the payroll tax was eliminated entirely, the savings would not exactly get passed on to the employee, now would they?

First of all, sure poor people aren't spending a lot in sales taxes in absolute dollars, but they actually pay more in sales taxes as a percentage of their total income than do rich people. This is because poor people spend nearly all of their income - when you save money you obviously aren't paying a sales tax on it.

It suddenly occurs to me that the sales tax part of our discussion is moot because Obama doesn't set a federal sales tax. Those are set at the state level. Hence, the president can't give a sales cut tax break to anybody.

Now, payroll taxes - employers only pay half of payroll taxes. Employees pay the other half. Surely you've noticed this on your paychecks?

My pay stub doesn't seem to break out the taxes that deep.. It just enumerates Medicare, Social Security and FICA.

And you're ignoring the self-employed, who have to pay all of it directly.

Many of whom are part of the mythical "5%" that Obama wants to screw. Er, excuse me, make sure they "pay their fair share."

Now sure, if the payroll tax were entirely eliminated, employers wouldn't raise wages by exactly the amount they currently pay in payroll taxes (although employees would presumably recieve all that they pay directly). But they would raise wages by quite a bit. Simple supply and demand. Oh, and because there is a cap on payroll taxes (you don't have to pay any on income of over $106,800 this year) they are yet another example of regressive taxes (poor people pay more as a percentage of their income than rich people).

That's the number for social security tax rate. Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? Because the Social Security tax is a flat tax of 6.2% on the first $106,800, and it most decidedly has not been subject to a tax cut in the last 20 years at least. However, the cap HAS gone UP every year. It was 57k in 1993, so it's been getting progressively less regressive (IE, soc sec tax on the more affluent has gone up every year, including this one).

 

[GasBandit]

Link time!

Yesterday Barack Obama met with his cabinet members. The big story to get from this is the fact that Obama requested his cabinet agencies to trim a collective $100 million off their budgets. 100 Million off a 4 trillion dollar budget? And all I've heard from the alphabet networks is how "obama's cutting costs?" Puh-leeze.

Did you see the stock market yesterday? The headline is that investors are worried about banks. Gee, ya think? Nothing like a government-owned banking industry to encourage the private sector.

Banks want out of TARP.

California regulators may rule that biofuels may actually be worse for the environment.

In Texas, cattle may be king, but there's still plenty of pork. Including the /b/tard's wet dream, Ron Paul.

51% View Tea Parties Favorably, Political Class Strongly Disagrees

The Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not prosecutors can be sued.

Miss California: Poster girl for Prop 8?

Kieth Olbermann and Janine Garofalo: A portrait in lunacy.

 

[Dieb]

It suddenly occurs to me that the sales tax part of our discussion is moot because Obama doesn't set a federal sales tax. Those are set at the state level. Hence, the president can't give a sales cut tax break to anybody.

Oh, very true. Same with property taxes, those are at the state and local level, not the federal. My point wasn't that Obama had cut these (he obviously hasn't, and couldn't) it was that these ARE taxes, and that they MATTER, especially to those who don't pay income taxes. Saying that 40% of people don't pay taxes is just wrong.

My pay stub doesn't seem to break out the taxes that deep.. It just enumerates Medicare, Social Security and FICA.

That's the number for social security tax rate. Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? Because the Social Security tax is a flat tax of 6.2% on the first $106,800, and it most decidedly has not been subject to a tax cut in the last 20 years at least. However, the cap HAS gone UP every year. It was 57k in 1993, so it's been getting progressively less regressive (IE, soc sec tax on the more affluent has gone up every year, including this one).

Ok, I think we've had a miscommunication here. Those Medicare, Social Security, those ARE payroll taxes (together, they are called FICA) - the only ones. And Obama HAS cut these, in a sort of roundabout way. Everyone gets a $400 payroll tax credit ($800 for joint filers) which means everyone pays $400 (or $800) less in payroll taxes in 2009 and 2010. This is the biggest part of his tax decrease by far - it adds up to 116 billion dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Stimu ... ndividuals). The rest of it, yes, is basically tax credits for income taxes. But he's entirely correct when he says he cut taxes for 95% of the public.

Oh, and about the cap for social security - yes, it goes up every year. It would have to in order to account for inflation. Specifically though, it's tied to the average national wage, which does tend to increase more than inflation. So it is getting a little less regressive over time. It remains the most regressive tax America has though, by a lot. I mean, you don't have to pay any more for any dollar you make over the cap! That's about as regressive as it gets.

Many of whom are part of the mythical "5%" that Obama wants to screw. Er, excuse me, make sure they "pay their fair share."

Oh, because most self-employed make more than 250,000 dollars a year? I doubt that. My Dad is self-employed, and he sure isn't over that threshold.

 

[GasBandit]

It suddenly occurs to me that the sales tax part of our discussion is moot because Obama doesn't set a federal sales tax. Those are set at the state level. Hence, the president can't give a sales cut tax break to anybody.

Oh, very true. Same with property taxes, those are at the state and local level, not the federal. My point wasn't that Obama had cut these (he obviously hasn't, and couldn't) it was that these ARE taxes, and that they MATTER, especially to those who don't pay income taxes. Saying that 40% of people don't pay taxes is just wrong.

Very well then, how about 40% of people don't pay taxes to the federal government?

Ok, I think we've had a miscommunication here. Those Medicare, Social Security, those ARE payroll taxes (together, they are called FICA) - the only ones. And Obama HAS cut these, in a sort of roundabout way. Everyone gets a $400 payroll tax credit ($800 for joint filers) which means everyone pays $400 (or $800) less in payroll taxes in 2009 and 2010. This is the biggest part of his tax decrease by far - it adds up to 116 billion dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Stimu ... ndividuals). The rest of it, yes, is basically tax credits for income taxes. But he's entirely correct when he says he cut taxes for 95% of the public.

That's open for interpretation. A one (or even two) time stimulus payment is already murky in that definition area, especially when it's meant to address expenses not incurred federally. In fact, it starts to look less like a tax cut and more like income redistribution.

[quote:2igiprox]Many of whom are part of the mythical "5%" that Obama wants to screw. Er, excuse me, make sure they "pay their fair share."

Oh, because most self-employed make more than 250,000 dollars a year? I doubt that. My Dad is self-employed, and he sure isn't over that threshold.[/quote:2igiprox]
He in particular may not be, but many "self employed" people have to report all of their business's earnings on their taxes, and there are certainly many a small business that make over 250 grand a year. Heck, . Also, that number keeps getting lower every month. I remember when it was 400,000... then 300,000... now 250. There were rumblings of lowering it further to 150 or even 100 for a while there.

 

[GasBandit]

Link time!

A new survey shows that one out of every three American children between the ages of six and 11 fear that our planet will not exist when they grow up. Guess who is the most anxious about an Al Gore-scripted apocalypse? Minority children. 75% of black children and 65% of Hispanic children believe that the earth will be "irrevocably damaged" by the time they are adults.

Barney Frank passes the buck. It was all Bush. All of it. Never mind that it originated under Clinton and was viciously defended like a slobbering bulldog by Frank.

Chairman of the New Hampshire Democrat Party calls tea-party attendees an "unhinged mob."

President Obama says that he is open to prosecution of Bush officials who wrote the memos approving "harsh interrogation tactics."

Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are eager to begin investigating Wall Street and its evil, greedy, capitalist practices.

Obama officially signed the national service bill into law yesterday. The cost of this bill? $5.7 billion.

According to a spokesperson from La Raza ... money inspires the anti-immigration rhetoric of talk radio hosts.

You'll be happy to know that Hugo Chavez has declared that socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration. Here's a tip... if what you're doing makes Hugo Chavez happy, you're probably doing it wrong.

Uh oh. Iowa Rep. Steve King went there .. comparing Obama's policies towards private businesses to those of Hugo Chavez.

So what's the deal with Obama and black farmers?

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is going to run for governor of California.

The Labor Department has decided to throw some love to the unions by repealing a last minute Bush regulation that would have increased scrutiny of union finances to help root out financial corruption.

The founder of the Minuteman project has thrown his hat into the ring.

In true government fashion ... poor New Yorkers are getting paid for "good behavior."

 

A new survey shows that one out of every three American children between the ages of six and 11 fear that our planet will not exist when they grow up. Guess who is the most anxious about an Al Gore-scripted apocalypse? Minority children. 75% of black children and 65% of Hispanic children believe that the earth will be "irrevocably damaged" by the time they are adults.

Uh...So?

GB, I think you are being a racist bastard. Disabuse me of this idea.

 

[GasBandit]

A new survey shows that one out of every three American children between the ages of six and 11 fear that our planet will not exist when they grow up. Guess who is the most anxious about an Al Gore-scripted apocalypse? Minority children. 75% of black children and 65% of Hispanic children believe that the earth will be "irrevocably damaged" by the time they are adults.

Uh...So?

GB, I think you are being a racist bastard. Disabuse me of this idea.

There's a parallel here you're missing, and maybe I should have pointed it out originally. Minority children are statistically more likely to be in government education facilities.

 

A new survey shows that one out of every three American children between the ages of six and 11 fear that our planet will not exist when they grow up. Guess who is the most anxious about an Al Gore-scripted apocalypse? Minority children. 75% of black children and 65% of Hispanic children believe that the earth will be "irrevocably damaged" by the time they are adults.

Uh...So?

GB, I think you are being a racist bastard. Disabuse me of this idea.

There's a parallel here you're missing, and maybe I should have pointed it out originally. Minority children are statistically more likely to be in government education facilities.

Excellent. I hadn't thought of that angle. I was thinking you were bagging on socioeconomic education. Carry on.

 

[Bubble181]

Miss California: Poster girl for Prop 8?

Eww, seriously, California can't come up with a better-looking girl? Heck, I think Zen looks better than this one, and she lives in CA too. Give her the ribbon.

 

[Dieb]

Very well then, how about 40% of people don't pay taxes to the federal government?

Ummm, no? Did you forget about payroll taxes? That we've been talking about for awhile? Those ARE Federal, and hit everyone working.

That's open for interpretation. A one (or even two) time stimulus payment is already murky in that definition area, especially when it's meant to address expenses not incurred federally. In fact, it starts to look less like a tax cut and more like income redistribution.

It's a tax cut. Everyone will be paying less in Social Security and Medicare taxes for the next two years. Sure, it's temporary, but so were Bush's tax cuts, still makes it a tax cut. I have no idea what you mean by "meant to address expenses not incurred federally". Finally, any change in government spending or taxing is going to include some income redistribution. Under Bush, the rich got more than they did under Clinton. This isn't necessarily BAD - but nor is the poor getting more under Obama.

Heck, . Also, that number keeps getting lower every month.

I think you meant to write more there.

President Obama says that he is open to prosecution of Bush officials who wrote the memos approving "harsh interrogation tactics."

I'll be writing another post on torture soon. Those memos revealed some incredibly disturbing details. It'll be a long post though, so we'll see when I get the time.

You'll be happy to know that Hugo Chavez has declared that socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration. Here's a tip... if what you're doing makes Hugo Chavez happy, you're probably doing it wrong.

What, anything that makes Hugo Chavez happy is wrong? No matter what? Should we do the opposite of whatever he wants? Please, that gives him way too much power. Personally, I don't give a crap about what he thinks. We should do what's right for American, whatever Chavez thinks.

Plus, he's obviously just trying to steal Obama's thunder. Trying to get some of his reflected popularity. Do you really think Obama wants Venezuelan-style socialism? Please. You aren't as stupid as Rep. Steve King. From your link:

They are, King said, "two world leaders who in the last couple of months have nationalized huge private-sector companies."

"Those two have done the same thing to private business," he said.

Nope, not even close, Congressman. What companies has Obama nationalized? Not a single damn one. Under BUSH we nationalized Freddie, Fannie, AIG, and gave GM and Chrysler large amounts of bailout money. So is Rep. Steve King an idiot, a liar, or is he just criminally misinformed? My guess would be all three.

 

[GasBandit]

Very well then, how about 40% of people don't pay taxes to the federal government?

Ummm, no? Did you forget about payroll taxes? That we've been talking about for awhile? Those ARE Federal, and hit everyone working.

Obviously I just had a brain fart. Retracted.

[quote:3vrfaczl]That's open for interpretation. A one (or even two) time stimulus payment is already murky in that definition area, especially when it's meant to address expenses not incurred federally. In fact, it starts to look less like a tax cut and more like income redistribution.

It's a tax cut. Everyone will be paying less in Social Security and Medicare taxes for the next two years. Sure, it's temporary, but so were Bush's tax cuts, still makes it a tax cut. I have no idea what you mean by "meant to address expenses not incurred federally". Finally, any change in government spending or taxing is going to include some income redistribution. Under Bush, the rich got more than they did under Clinton. This isn't necessarily BAD - but nor is the poor getting more under Obama.[/quote:3vrfaczl] If a 2 year payroll tax credit is considered a tax cut, then the first year without it must also be considered a de facto tax hike. Same with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Income redistribution however, IS bad. It's arsenic in the veins of capitalism. "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Adrian Rogers

[quote:3vrfaczl]Heck, . Also, that number keeps getting lower every month.

I think you meant to write more there.[/quote:3vrfaczl] Yes, I did. About a damn paragraph and I don't know why it vanished.

[quote:3vrfaczl]President Obama says that he is open to prosecution of Bush officials who wrote the memos approving "harsh interrogation tactics."

I'll be writing another post on torture soon. Those memos revealed some incredibly disturbing details. It'll be a long post though, so we'll see when I get the time.[/quote:3vrfaczl]

One detail that leapt out at me was the part where a previously avowed anti-torture Admiral said that waterboarding suspects gleaned valuable information that helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles. One can still argue its moral implications, but the argument of "information gained via torture is useless" argument just got dealt a blow.

What, anything that makes Hugo Chavez happy is wrong? No matter what?

Very much of it. We of course have to make the usual "there are always exceptions" disclaimer for things like juicy steak and blowjobs.

Plus, he's obviously just trying to steal Obama's thunder. Trying to get some of his reflected popularity. Do you really think Obama wants Venezuelan-style socialism?

Perhaps not Venezuelan style, but he does want a lot more socialism in our government, if never openly named. I've been saying since the primaries the guy is a socialist.

Please. You aren't as stupid as Rep. Steve King. From your link:

[quote:3vrfaczl]They are, King said, "two world leaders who in the last couple of months have nationalized huge private-sector companies."

"Those two have done the same thing to private business," he said.

Nope, not even close, Congressman. What companies has Obama nationalized? Not a single damn one. Under BUSH we nationalized Freddie, Fannie, AIG, and gave GM and Chrysler large amounts of bailout money. So is Rep. Steve King an idiot, a liar, or is he just criminally misinformed? My guess would be all three.[/quote:3vrfaczl] For all intents and purposes, Obama has nationalized the banking and auto industries. The federal government now has overarching control over anyone who accepted TARP funds and is blocking attempts made by companies to give back the money now that they realize what they were signing on for. Obama's teleprompter can keep claiming they aren't in the auto business, but they're sure firing CEOs and setting policy. If it looks, sounds, and swims like a duck...

 

[Krisken]

I'll be writing another post on torture soon. Those memos revealed some incredibly disturbing details. It'll be a long post though, so we'll see when I get the time.

One detail that leapt out at me was the part where a previously avowed anti-torture Admiral said that waterboarding suspects gleaned valuable information that helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles. One can still argue its moral implications, but the argument of "information gained via torture is useless" argument just got dealt a blow.

Sorry, this I have issue with. Information gained through torture is useless because the amount of false information is so high as to put all other information in doubt. This is the same as saying the Enquirer was right the one time, so reading the Enquirer can be considered reading a valid way to get information. It's still the Enquirer.

It's still torture.

 

[Seraphyn]

One can still argue its moral implications, but the argument of "information gained via torture is useless" argument just got dealt a blow.

I'm quite sure torture can lead to useful information, the question is simply if we're willing to stoop to that level. Apparently your/our governments seem to think it is/was perfectly fine. Personally I'd like to take the moral higher ground on such matters and not degrade our society despite to possible costs.

The thing that always irks me about those 'we prevented x' stories is that we have no way of checking if they're actually true. It's only decades later that the truth comes to light and it has happened more then once that such a story was a blatant lie. In the mean time, the damage is already long done.

 

[Krisken]

One can still argue its moral implications, but the argument of "information gained via torture is useless" argument just got dealt a blow.

I'm quite sure torture can lead to useful information, the question is simply if we're willing to stoop to that level. Apparently your/our governments seem to think it is/was perfectly fine. Personally I'd like to take the moral higher ground on such matters and not degrade our society despite to possible costs.

The thing that always irks me about those 'we prevented x' stories is that we have no way of checking if they're actually true. It's only decades later that the truth comes to light and it has happened more then once that such a story was a blatant lie. In the mean time, the damage is already long done.

Not only that, but it's a whole lot harder to say "Don't torture our soldiers" when they can say "Well, you do it, so fuck you".

 

[GasBandit]

One can still argue its moral implications, but the argument of "information gained via torture is useless" argument just got dealt a blow.

I'm quite sure torture can lead to useful information, the question is simply if we're willing to stoop to that level. Apparently your/our governments seem to think it is/was perfectly fine. Personally I'd like to take the moral higher ground on such matters and not degrade our society despite to possible costs.

And that's the moral argument I said that can still be made.

Not only that, but it's a whole lot harder to say "Don't torture our soldiers" when they can say "Well, you do it, so fuck you".

Pssh, like they wouldn't even if we never did.

 

[Dieb]

If a 2 year payroll tax credit is considered a tax cut, then the first year without it must also be considered a de facto tax hike. Same with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Income redistribution however, IS bad. It's arsenic in the veins of capitalism. "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Adrian Rogers

First of all, I'm going to do a seperate post for torture. It'll probably be a double post, but the second will be very long, and I felt that it shouldn't be mixed with the rest of this.

Income redistribution has been a fact of life under our tax system since at least the early 1900's, when we went to a graduated income tax. It's something that will happen under ANY graduated income tax. Now, I assume you're for a flat tax (or perhaps a national sales tax) and that's fine, I disagree with it, but it's not an insane proposition. But Obama just wants to bring taxes back to the level they were under Clinton. How is this socialism?

And for being "aresenic in the veins of capitalism", we sure have done well under the last century of income redistribution. Now, I agree that there is some level of income redistribution that would be quite bad. But I don't think we're even near that level. Hell, Obama wants to set the income tax on the highest bracket to a level that's less than it was under Reagan! But somehow this man is is akin to Hugo Chavez?

Yes, I did. About a damn paragraph and I don't know why it vanished.

Gotta hate it when that happens. In fact, something happened to this post of mine - got eaten somehow. *sigh*

For all intents and purposes, Obama has nationalized the banking and auto industries. The federal government now has overarching control over anyone who accepted TARP funds and is blocking attempts made by companies to give back the money now that they realize what they were signing on for. Obama's teleprompter can keep claiming they aren't in the auto business, but they're sure firing CEOs and setting policy. If it looks, sounds, and swims like a duck...

TARP was signed by, and passed under....Bush. Funds from TARP were given to banks in exchange for their stock under....Bush. Auto companies were loaned money, thus putting them under the sway of the government such that their CEOs could be fired and the like under....Bush. Do conservatives just not have a memory of the last six months? Finally, sure, some banks now want to pay back the money they were given under TARP. What those banks aren't saying is that they will still be very much dependent on the government after they pay that money back. You see, all of these banks have gotten billions of dollars in low interest loans that they could not have otherwise raised - except those loans are backed by the Federal Reserve. And the banks aren't going to be paying those loans back for awhile yet - they just don't have the capital.

 

[Dieb]

One detail that leapt out at me was the part where a previously avowed anti-torture Admiral said that waterboarding suspects gleaned valuable information that helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles. One can still argue its moral implications, but the argument of "information gained via torture is useless" argument just got dealt a blow.

Ok, torture. Yes, we should surely believe those who tortured when they say that torture saved many lives. It's not like they have any incentive to overstate their claims :eyeroll: But let's really unpack your statement, there, to see what it holds.

First of all, Admiral Dennis Blair, the man talked about in your link, the man who is Obama's intelligence chief, didn't say anything about the plot to blow up a tower in LA. That is, however, an instance that pro-torture people bring up a lot, so I'll get to it in a moment. He did, however, write a memo that has a quote that, when taken out of context, makes it look like he is pro-torture. Here is, however, what the man really thinks (from your link) -

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Now, specifically about the claim that waterboarding was critical in foiling a plot to destroy the Library Tower, more formally called the US Bank Tower, the tallest building in the US west of the Mississippi. Many torture apologists bring this plot up - for example, Marc Thiessen says that if we hadn't waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed (otherwise known as KSM), "there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York". The problem is that we foiled this attack, according to the Bush White House, BEFORE we ever caught KSM. I'm going to quote the whole relevant paragraph from that link, follow it to find links backing up everything said.

What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward". A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.

Waterboarding a man in 2003 was essential to derailing a plot we foiled in 2002? That's the best they can come up with? I don't doubt there was SOME sort of information we got out of "enhanced interrogation" (although like Admiral Blair I am far from convinced that, whatever we got, we wouldn't have gotten it with conventional interrogation) but if this is the best example of the gain from using torture, how can anyone believe it was worth creating thousands of enemies willing to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damaging our reputation throughout the world? Beyond the whole "morality" question, obviously - I'll get to that. Dick Cheney wants to release the information of what we learned from torture - fine by me. Appoint a special prosecutor to find ALL the facts of this case. I somehow doubt all the evidence will vindicate them - after all, the CIA admitted to destroying the video tapes of the worst of the torture. Not exactly the actions of people who feel that full disclosure will vindicate them, is it?

This might be because, even by the ridiculously low standards of legality the Bush administration set for themselves, they STILL violated them. According to the May 30th 2005 Bradbury memo, KSM was waterboarded 183 times in a single month. However, according to that same memo waterboarding could only be used an absolute maximum of 90 times in a month.

where authorized, it may be used for two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water application. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period.

They could be waterboarded 6 times per session with two sessions per day, ie 12 applications per day. But they could also be waterboarded up to a total of twelve minutes per day, with each application being a maximum of 40 seconds, which gives us 18 applications per day. Let's use the higher number, just to be nice. 18 times a day, for five days per month, means only 90 times per month. Less than HALF of what KSM actually experienced. So even under this incredibly lenient view of torture is, whoever authorized or carried out these 183 waterboardings of KSM is guilty of war crimes under US law.

Of course, ANY use of waterboarding is torture. There are many cases where US courts categorically called waterboarding torture. Here's a link to a previous version of this thread where I gave some specifics. Here's a more emotional reason to call it torture:

That painting is found in the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Phnom Phen, Cambodia. It is given as an example of torture under the Khmer Rouge. It is obviously what we have been calling "waterboarding" (ie, placing a cloth over the victim’s mouth and nose and then pouring water over that cloth, producing a sensation of drowning). Cambodians who survived the Khmer Rouge's death camps consider waterboarding torture - somehow, I consider their opinion more relevant than Dick Cheney's.

Not that waterboarding is the ONLY thing we did that was torture. All of the various things that fall under "enhanced interrogation" sound harmless enough. When put in bloodless legalize, anyway. But when you combine extended sleep deprivation (up to 11 days according to the memos), "stress positions" (you know, the same technique that has resulted in John McCain not being able to lift his arms above his head), confinement in spaces so small you can't move, and more, it's torture. There's little doubt about this. Consider this list: "Simplest rations (bread and water). Hard bed. Dark cell. Deprivation of sleep. Exhaustion Exercises. but also resort to blows with stick (in case of more than 20 blows, a doctor must be present)."

That's not a list of what we did (although we DID do all of the things there, and much more). That's a list of what the Gestapo approved for use in Norway. They called it "Verschärfte Vernehmung", which translates to, yes, "enhanced interrogation" (or "intensified" or "sharpened" interrogation). For using Verschärfte Vernehmung, those Gestapo officers were executed for war crimes. Now, of course, the Gestapo ended up on expanding that list a bit.

That ALWAYS happens when you start to torture - even if it's "enhanced interrogation". I usually don't like the slippery slope argument. But when it comes to torture - you have a mentality that you can, you HAVE TO, do anything you can to save your country. So you start using "enhanced interrogation" techniques. It produces some information, but most of it is bunk. So you push a little harder. And then a little harder. There's no accountability - everything you do is completely secret. Eventually you waterboard a man 183 times in a month. The Gestapo eventually started using hypothermia, for example - which we also eventually did. The Gestapo officers in Norway in fact didn't ever do anything the US didn't do to Al Quada suspects. And they were executed for it.

Because torture isn't limited by what method you use. In George Orwell's "1984", what is in Room 101, the worst of the worst torture chamber? It's not some specific technique, like mutilation or testicular electrocution, things that conservatives always love to bring up as "real" torture. No, it's whatever that specific person fears the most. The point is that torture isn't method, torture is doing something so bad to a person that they will give up all hope - they will do ANYTHING to make the pain stop. There's little doubt we crossed that threshold with these prisoners. Hell, it's what we were TRYING to do! Here's Mark Thiessen again (same link as above)

But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.

Is there a better definition of torture than taking someone to the point where they "have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship", to the point where there is nothing left on Earth, only comfort in the Beyond? Here's a link to a story of an American reaching that same point. This is what we were TRYING to do to our captives:

Although the other captives had designated Denton "president of the optimist club," there were times he prayed to die. He didn't want to -- couldn't -- endure another minute of despair. Once, when Denton refused to tell guards how the Americans communicated with each other, he was tortured for 10 days and nights. By the 10th night, he couldn't think anymore. He couldn’t pray anymore.

Denton surrendered. Not to the guards, but to God. "It was a total surrender," he said. "If there was anymore to do, you will do it," he told God. "That instant, I felt zero pain," he said. "I felt the greatest comfort and reassurance in life that I haven’t felt since."

How can you do that to a fellow human being? How can you not call it torture? It quite literally makes me shake with rage to realize this was done in my name. Even if you think it was effective (I obviously don't) or that it is morally justified (hell no) you should have the fucking BALLS to call it what it is: torture.

What's really amazing is what the Bush officials who authorized these techniques didn't know much of a damn thing about it. So I'll let you in on these "secrets" (that obviously are not, in fact, secret at all). All of these "enhanced interrogation" techniques came from a military training program called SERE (for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) which included a part where these methods were used American airmen and soldiers. This was to give show them what was used by Communists in the Korean War on US soldiers. These techniques were used by the Communists not to gain information, but to force false confessions. Moreover,

The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.

They did not know that some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective. Nor were most of the officials aware that the former military psychologist who played a central role in persuading C.I.A. officials to use the harsh methods had never conducted a real interrogation

I mean, think about that. The people who authorized all of this in the interests of national security didn't know the US had already prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime. Didn't know the people who knew the methods best thought they'd be ineffective. Didn't know one of its biggest "expert" backers had never conducted a real interrogation. Hopefully they at least knew the CIA hadn't conducted any interrogations before 9/11. I would think that even people who are for all of this would be seriously fucking bothered by the shear bloody ignorance on display here.

 

Very well then, how about 40% of people don't pay taxes to the federal government?

Ummm, no? Did you forget about payroll taxes? That we've been talking about for awhile? Those ARE Federal, and hit everyone working.

Obviously I just had a brain fart. Retracted.

:shock:

Holy shit! Dieb has done the impossible!


GB said he was wrong!!

 

[GasBandit]

Man, you warned us the type-up was going to be long, but good gravy man. Since I post from work, I don't know if I'll be able to adequately address everything I want to in it.

One detail that leapt out at me was the part where a previously avowed anti-torture Admiral said that waterboarding suspects gleaned valuable information that helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles. One can still argue its moral implications, but the argument of "information gained via torture is useless" argument just got dealt a blow.

Ok, torture. Yes, we should surely believe those who tortured when they say that torture saved many lives. It's not like they have any incentive to overstate their claims :eyeroll: But let's really unpack your statement, there, to see what it holds.

First of all, Admiral Dennis Blair, the man talked about in your link, the man who is Obama's intelligence chief, didn't say anything about the plot to blow up a tower in LA. That is, however, an instance that pro-torture people bring up a lot, so I'll get to it in a moment. He did, however, write a memo that has a quote that, when taken out of context, makes it look like he is pro-torture. Here is, however, what the man really thinks (from your link) -

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

That we gained useful information is noteworthy because of the tendency in recent years for people to dismiss any and all information gained via controversial methods to be useless. That Blair considers the blow to the country's image to outweigh the benefits gained by obtaining that information is worthy of consideration, but does not change the fact that not every man who gets subjected to discomfort will tell you he started the Chicago fire.

Now, specifically about the claim that waterboarding was critical in foiling a plot to destroy the Library Tower, more formally called the US Bank Tower, the tallest building in the US west of the Mississippi. Many torture apologists bring this plot up

Don't say "apologists" if you want to be taken seriously. It makes you sound like your primary news source is DailyKos, after having heard every opponent of "progressive" policy be called a "something apologist" for the last 8+ years. Just because you are in favor of something and have reasons you can cite for it doesn't mean you're "apologizing" on its behalf.

Look, I've got work stacking up here and I can't give all this the time it deserves (and I've STILL got today's links to put up), so I'm going to have to cut out with simply this - You have a terrorist in custody. You know there's an attack in the next few days, but you don't know exactly how or exactly where. You know he knows the details, and he knows you know, but he thinks all he has to do is hold out a few days and Allah's will be done. He is confidently assured in the victory of his cause. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of lives could be decided by your next choice - do you do everything in your power to extract the information or not? Think long and hard about that. If it comes down to it, if there's a chance to save those lives but you would have to compromise your humanity to do so, would you retain your humanity? Knowing that when the bomb goes off, the plane crashes, the train derails, whatever... that there might have been something you could have done to have stopped it and kept those people alive? Knowing that when you see the tear-streaked faces of the hundreds or more families at the funerals on CNN that their suffering was something you had a chance to avert, but you decided your own moral scruples were more important? Knowing that these people trusted you, as an extension of their government, to protect their well being and that of their loved ones? Knowing that you chose the comfort and sanity of a humanoid monster instead of their sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, and siblings?

Granted, I paint a very extreme and specific picture of a case for a single use of extreme methods and not as a standard practice. But the point of the exercise is to demonstrate that there is a point at which any decent human being, even the most die hard "terrorist apologist" (see how silly that sounds?) would have falterings in their convictions on this subject. Then, once that is established, it just becomes a debate about where that line is that says "you can do it in situation X but not Y."

And just because I can't go an entire post without a flippant dig at somebody...

-- Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:55 am --

Links -

SEAN HANNITY TO BE WATERBOARDED FOR CHARITY?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2I6qRYJfYg:3unyt4ok][/youtube:3unyt4ok]


The mother of the Somali pirate is asking for a pardon for her son.


The government is now considering limiting the size of banks so that they will never be "too big to fail."

The UK is talking about raising their top tax bracket to 50%. There are already talks about fears of "brain drain."

Obama muddles torture messages

Janet Napolitano suggests the 9-11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada.

Is education costing us more than health care?

Why does Obama smile at dictators? Maybe he's hoping to make this list.

The idea of a state-called constitutional convention to address federal power is gaining steam.

The top GE executive says that this global financial crisis has completely "reset" capitalism and the way we do business.

Ahmadinejad is upset that Barack Obama did not participate in the thrilling UN conference on racism.

GM is planning to temporarily close most of its American factories for up to nine weeks this summer. Yeah .. but are they going to have to continue to pay the workers?

 

[Mr_Chaz]

The UK is talking about raising their top tax bracket to 50%. There are already talks about fears of "brain drain."

Not thinking about. We are doing it. And about damn time too.

 

[Armadillo]

The UK is talking about raising their top tax bracket to 50%. There are already talks about fears of "brain drain."

Not thinking about. We are doing it. And about damn time too.

Well, good on you folks over there! Will you feel the same way when the rich and corporations-you know, the ones who create jobs and wealth, move their operations to a lower-taxed area? That would be the "brain drain" GB referenced in his links, and it is no good whatsoever.

Here in Minnesota, there have been radio spots playing for about the last two-three years from the Sioux Falls (South Dakota) Development Agency, trying to attract Minnesota-based businesses to Sioux Falls with promises of better commutes, more open space, and best of all, LOWER TAXES. And guess what? It's working.

 

[Covar]

The idea of a state-called constitutional convention to address federal power is gaining steam.

Your link is broken and that's upsetting as I find the idea of the States getting up off their collective asses and taking back some of the power they've given up in the past 100+ years to be fantastic.

 

[GasBandit]

The idea of a state-called constitutional convention to address federal power is gaining steam.

Your link is broken and that's upsetting as I find the idea of the States getting up off their collective asses and taking back some of the power they've given up in the past 100+ years to be fantastic.

Doh. I think this was it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html

 

[Covar]

The idea of a state-called constitutional convention to address federal power is gaining steam.

Your link is broken and that's upsetting as I find the idea of the States getting up off their collective asses and taking back some of the power they've given up in the past 100+ years to be fantastic.

Doh. I think this was it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html

fascinating article, thanks.

 

[JCM]

I'll be writing another post on torture soon. Those memos revealed some incredibly disturbing details. It'll be a long post though, so we'll see when I get the time.

One detail that leapt out at me was the part where a previously avowed anti-torture Admiral said that waterboarding suspects gleaned valuable information that helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles. One can still argue its moral implications, but the argument of "information gained via torture is useless" argument just got dealt a blow.

Sorry, this I have issue with. Information gained through torture is useless because the amount of false information is so high as to put all other information in doubt. This is the same as saying the Enquirer was right the one time, so reading the Enquirer can be considered reading a valid way to get information. It's still the Enquirer.

It's still torture.

Not to mention that the fact that a)no details are being told, and b)its being told during a time of pressure for putting those responsible for torture on trial, it could be pretty much some general spouting BS to cover his arse.

But funnily the libertarian-republicans only believe politicians when they agree with their points. :aaahhh:

Now, specifically about the claim that waterboarding was critical in foiling a plot to destroy the Library Tower, more formally called the US Bank Tower, the tallest building in the US west of the Mississippi. Many torture apologists bring this plot up

Refer to my earlier point.

Anyway, because I raped that girl, I was able to get the cure to cancer. See how easy it is? Also back to the same link-

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.

The SAS ahve much more effective methods of gaining information (my favourite, after solitary, lace a "prisoner" who slowly gets everything out of you while being your only confort and company), and it doesnt take an idiot to see that one can easily break down the human psyche through psychological methods rather then physical.